United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision 

Matter of: TN-KY Contractors 

File: B-291997.2 

Date: May 5, 2003 

Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq., for the protester. 

Maj. Robert Neill, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. 

Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Solicitation for fixed-price grass cutting contract does not impose an unreasonable 

cost risk upon offerors, where the solicitation, which does not have an unlimited 

scope of work, provides sufficient information upon which offerors can base their 

prices. 

DECISION 

TN-KY Contractors protests the terms of requests for proposal (RFP) No. DABK09-

03-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for ground maintenance services at 

Fort Campbell, Kentucky. TN-KY contends that the requested monthly fixed-price 

for grass cutting services unreasonably shifts cost risk to the offerors, and that grass 

cutting should be priced on a “per cut” basis. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP seeks the performance of grounds maintenance services, including 

“mowing, edging, trimming, removing debris, and repairing Contractor damaged 

areas.” In this regard, the selected contractor “shall provide all personnel, 

equipment, tools, supervision, and other items and services necessary to ensure that 

grounds maintenance is performed at Fort Campbell, [Kentucky], in a manner that 

will maintain healthy grass, and present a clean, neat, and professional appearance.” 

As indicated in the solicitation, “[grass] height is a guideline for a neat and 

professional appearance.” RFP at 39. Grass height tolerances for designated areas 

are set forth in the following five contract line items (CLIN): CLIN 0001 (Child Care 

Area)--maintain grass to 11⁄2- to 3-inch height cut (311 acres); CLIN 0002 (Inside Fort 

Campbell Cantonment Area)--maintain grass to 2- to 5-inch height cut (1457 acres); 
Page 2 B-291997.2 

CLIN 0003 (Airfield Areas)--maintain grass to 2- to 5-inch height cut (2344 acres); 

CLIN 0004 (Housing Areas)--maintain grass to 11⁄2- to 3-inch height cut (584 acres); 

and CLIN 0005 (Back Area Road/Road Shoulders)--maintain grass to 5- to 7-inch cut 

(829 acres). RFP at 3-4, 39. Offerors were advised that it is the “responsibility of the 

contractor to maintain [the] grass at the heights indicated in the bid schedule [i.e., 

CLINS],” and that the “maximum height listed for each level shall not be exceeded at 

any time.” A “Grass Mowing Contract Performance Areas Map,” and other area 

maps, were included with the RFP, and offerors were informed that performance 

would “typically occur during a seven-month mowing period, (April through 

October); however, for the purpose of this requirement, an eight month mowing 

season has been established,” and the “[c]ost for the mowing season shall be spread 

over 8 months.” RFP at 39. The RFP does not specify the number of cuts that are 

required during the performance period, leaving to the offerors how best to meet the 

performance requirements.1

 

As contemplated by the RFP, the Army conducted a pre-proposal conference on 

January 14, 2003. Prospective offerors could submit questions concerning the 

solicitation in writing at any time up until the pre-proposal conference. The Army 

responded to the questions in subsequent amendments to the RFP. The pre-proposal 

conference included a site visit during which prospective offerors could inspect the 

Fort Campbell vegetation, or offerors could make separate arrangements by 

telephone for a site visit. AR at 2-3; RFP at 82. TN-KY did not attend the 

pre-proposal conference, participate in the site visit, or submit any questions at that 

time. 

The closing date for receipt of proposals was February 18. On or about February 13, 

TN-KY submitted a list of handwritten questions to the Army, to which the 

contracting officer responded in part on February 13, referred the remaining 

questions to the technical team for answers, and attempted to relay those answers to 

the protester on February 18. TN-KY was informed that the proposal closing date 

would not be extended. 

On February 18, TN-KY submitted an agency-level protest, contending that the 

pricing requirements of the RFP should be changed for grass cutting from a monthly 

to a “per cut by delivery order” basis. The Army denied the protest that same day, 

and this protest followed. 

TN-KY contends that the pricing structure of the RFP unreasonably shifts the cost 

risk to the contractor. According to protester, “TN-KY cannot determine what price 

to put in nor can any other offeror, because . . . [t]here is no limitation on the amount 

of work that can be ordered . . . , since depending on the rain there could be hundred 

 

1

 Other CLINs, not at issue here, for cemeteries, parade grounds, and special events, 

specified the number of cuts required during a specific period of performance. 
Page 3 B-291997.2 

fold or two thousand fold increase as compared with past historical data.” 

Protester’s Comments at 2. To minimize this risk, TN-KY argues, pricing should be 

sought on a “per cut,” as opposed to a per-month, basis.2 

The mere presence of risk in a solicitation does not make the solicitation 

inappropriate or improper. It is within the ambit of administrative discretion for an 

agency to offer for competition a proposed contract that imposes maximum risks 

upon the contractor and minimum burdens on the agency, and an offeror should 

account for this in formulating its proposal. Instrument Control Serv., Inc.; Science 

& Mgmt. Res., Inc., B-289660, B-289660.2, Apr. 15, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 66 at 7; Clifford 

La Tourelle, B-271505, June 5, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 270 at 3. Here, the protester has not 

demonstrated that the allocation of risk is unreasonable. 

Contrary to the protester’s contentions, the work here is not unlimited, but is 

restricted to grass cutting and grounds maintenance of specified areas and acreage 

for specified durations within specified height requirements. 3 The RFP also includes 

maps of the cutting areas, and provided contractors with the opportunity to visit the 

site to inspect the type of grass and vegetation growing. In our view, the RFP 

provides sufficient information for offerors to intelligently formulate their prices.

The protester’s assertion that rain could cause a “hundred fold or two thousand fold 

increase” in required services is not supported by the record. Moreover, the fact that 

rain may affect the rate of grass growth, in our view, is a factor that offerors can 

 

2

 The protester also contended, in its protest, that its knowledge as the incumbent of 

Fort Campbell’s grass cutting needs created an unfair competitive advantage that 

could cause other offerors to underbid it; that the Army failed to answer its questions 

posed on or about February 13; and that an RFP provision concerning the award 

term was unduly restrictive. The agency addressed each of these arguments in its 

report and the protester failed to respond in its comments; thus, we consider TN-KY 

to have abandoned these arguments and will not consider them further. Analex 

Space Sys., Inc.; PAI Corp., B-259024, B-259024.2, Feb. 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD ¶ 106 at 8. 

3

 These limitations distinguish this solicitation from the pricing schemes in BMAR & 

Assocs., Inc., B-281664, Mar. 18, 1999, 99-1 CPD ¶ 62, and Four Star Maint. Corp., 

B-240413, Nov. 2, 1990, 91-1 CPD ¶ 70 (cited by the protester), where we found the 

solicitations’ use of lump sum pricing for maintenance services imposed an 

unreasonable risk on the contractor because they placed no limit on the scope of 

work the contractor could be required to perform for major, potentially expensive 

service items under the lump sum portion of the contract. That is not the case here, 

where the RFP sets parameters around the grass cutting services required, and the 

only variable appears to be rainfall, which the protester has not shown will result in 

an unlimited scope of work. 
Page 4 B-291997.2 

reasonably take into account in formulating their proposals.4 A solicitation is not 

defective merely because it may place the contractor at risk in terms of, for example, 

the possibility that payments under the contract will not cover the cost of 

performance. Risk is inherent in most types of contracts, especially fixed-price 

contracts, and offerors must use their professional expertise and business judgment 

in anticipating a variety of influences affecting performance costs. Sea-Land Serv., 

Inc., B-278404.2, Feb. 9, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 47 at 11, 14; Steel Circle Bldg. Co., 

B-245749, Feb. 3, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 134 at 3. 

The protest is denied. 

Anthony H. Gamboa 

General Counsel 

 

4

 The protester acknowledges that it is “very knowledgeable on the growing 

conditions and how they effect the grass and weed types” because it has had a 

mowing contract with Fort Campbell for 15 years. Protest at 1.